[Politics] Trump's new gender executive order...

[superseagull1994]

So in America you are a child until you're 19?

Crikey. I know that Americans in general are somewhat infantilized, some never growing up, but I hadn't realized this is enshrined in their laws.

In most states its 18 but it does vary but by putting the age at 19 the theory is they want to expand it to all adults as a blanket ban on gender affirming care in the future.

 

[jcdenton08]

So in America you are a child until you're 19?

Crikey. I know that Americans in general are somewhat infantilized, some never growing up, but I hadn't realized this is enshrined in their laws.

18+, don’t know where 19 came from.

Same as us in the UK. Hormone replacement can start at 16+ but requires parental permission. You’re free to do what you want at 18 when you become a legal adult. (But in the US, still can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21).

Laws around this stuff are a joke though. The age of consent here is 16, but two 16 year olds can’t make a sex tape or send each other nudes legally. There are numerous “Romeo & Juliet” laws, but the judiciary as ever are incredibly slow catching up with all this stuff.

And with gender being a relatively hot-button issue with record high numbers of transitioning people, there are obviously loose ends to tie up.

 

[Hamilton]

So now it's DEI that caused the air crash! I bet there was a woman involved as well. And someone who was trans.

They're probably responsible for COVID as well. And the financial crash.

Combative Trump blames DEI policies after air tragedy

The president started his White House news conference as "consoler-in-chief" but then pivoted into unevidenced political blame, writes the BBC's Anthony Zurcher.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jcdenton08]

So now it's DEI that caused the air crash! I bet there was a woman involved as well. And someone who was trans.

They're probably responsible for COVID as well. And the financial crash.

Combative Trump blames DEI policies after air tragedy

The president started his White House news conference as "consoler-in-chief" but then pivoted into unevidenced political blame, writes the BBC's Anthony Zurcher.

www.bbc.co.uk

Vile political gaming from Trump.

Loads coming out now about what a shitfest it is though, how there was an emergency go-around the night before the crash involving another Black Hawk helicopter. How there was only one person working ATC instead of the regulation two.

Early assessments are that protocols weren’t being followed at all and this was an avoidable incident if they were.

But it’s a tragedy, not a f***ing political football.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

18+, don’t know where 19 came from.

Same as us in the UK. Hormone replacement can start at 16+ but requires parental permission. You’re free to do what you want at 18 when you become a legal adult. (But in the US, still can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21).

Laws around this stuff are a joke though. The age of consent here is 16, but two 16 year olds can’t make a sex tape or send each other nudes legally. There are numerous “Romeo & Juliet” laws, but the judiciary as ever are incredibly slow catching up with all this stuff.

And with gender being a relatively hot-button issue with record high numbers of transitioning people, there are obviously loose ends to tie up.

Yes, it's all mad isn't it?

I have always felt that for some issues the law should operate around the individual.

But I guess it simply isn't practicable.

As a pharmacologist I understand the dose-response relationship. When I do research, the mg/kg is critically important.
Yet in medicine we give the same mg dose of most drugs to a 50 kg woman and a 15 kg bloke.

I have to say that banning the use of puberty blockers till after puberty is a rotten trick.
And it is cowardly.
If you want to ban them then ban them.

Has the voting age been lowered to 16 yet? I really can't remember.
The idea that you can have a kid and die for your country yet cannot vote is quite absurd.

That said, I have often said you need to take a basic intelligence and citizenship test before you are allowed to vote.
That would of course be opposed by certain types . . .
(*cough* Farage/Badenough *cough*) who rely on the thick and deranged for a good proportion of their votes.

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

So now it's DEI that caused the air crash! I bet there was a woman involved as well. And someone who was trans.

They're probably responsible for COVID as well. And the financial crash.

Combative Trump blames DEI policies after air tragedy

The president started his White House news conference as "consoler-in-chief" but then pivoted into unevidenced political blame, writes the BBC's Anthony Zurcher.

www.bbc.co.uk

He is the most despicable human being of our time.

 

[jcdenton08]

Yes, it's all mad isn't it?

Yes it is.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Yes, it's all mad isn't it?

I have always felt that for some issues the law should operate around the individual.

But I guess it simply isn't practicable.

As a pharmacologist I understand the dose-response relationship. When I do research, the mg/kg is critically important.
Yet in medicine we give the same mg dose of most drugs to a 50 kg woman and a 15 kg bloke.

I have to say that banning the use of puberty blockers till after puberty is a rotten trick.
And it is cowardly.
If you want to ban them then ban them.

Has the voting age been lowered to 16 yet? I really can't remember.
The idea that you can have a kid and die for your country yet cannot vote is quite absurd.

That said, I have often said you need to take a basic intelligence and citizenship test before you are allowed to vote.
That would of course be opposed by certain types . . .
(*cough* Farage/Badenough *cough*) who rely on the thick and deranged for a good proportion of their votes.

That reads like the "individual" that you think the law should operate around, is yourself. "One man one vote" where you are the man, and yours is the vote.

Do you believe that democracy can be best served if the government has the power to exclude certain categories of people from voting if they think they might vote against them?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That reads like the "individual" that you think the law should operate around, is yourself. "One man one vote" where you are the man, and yours is the vote.

Do you believe that democracy can be best served if the government has the power to exclude certain categories of people from voting if they think they might vote against them?

Don't be silly.

I am thinking specifically about things like medicines.
We hear a lot about 'personalized' medicine.
(interventions tailored to our genotype)
And yet we can't even be bothered to select a dose around body weight for most drugs.
I have never understood that.

Likewise I know colleagues who have made a career around the effect of biological sex on drug actions.
But almost all drugs are prescribed without any regard for the sex of the patient.

As for voter fitness, yes I do believe certain categories of people should be excluded from voting.
But don't worry. I don't mean silly old sausages like you.
I mean people who in a test would declare:

England won world war two against France and America
Women are inferior
The square root of 100 is 2
Scotland is part of England
It is OK to kill people if they disagree with you.

(Other more considered questions are available.)

And so on. A simple little fitness test. What's not to like?

 

[Curious Orange]

I have to say that banning the use of puberty blockers till after puberty is a rotten trick.
And it is cowardly.
If you want to ban them then ban them.

While there are legitimate (and rare) medical uses for puberty blockers, I think banning them as a treatment for paediatric mental health conditions is actually the moral and ethical thing to do. These are no small drugs to be giving to people who are in no position to conceptualise the long term consequences of taking them.

Being uncomfortable in your own skin is a normal part of growing up, being a tom-boy is normal, playing as the opposite sex is normal, wondering about your sexuality is normal, pretending to be someone else is normal, following a trend amongst your peers is normal, worrying about what other people think of you is normal, becoming an adult is normal.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

While there are legitimate (and rare) medical uses for puberty blockers, I think banning them as a treatment for paediatric mental health conditions is actually the moral and ethical thing to do. These are no small drugs to be giving to people who are in no position to conceptualise the long term consequences of taking them.

Being uncomfortable in your own skin is a normal part of growing up, being a tom-boy is normal, playing as the opposite sex is normal, wondering about your sexuality is normal, pretending to be someone else is normal, following a trend amongst your peers is normal, worrying about what other people think of you is normal, becoming an adult is normal.

I largely agree.
But I would like to know a bit more about whether the likes of people I have come across would have benefitted by not gender switching when young.
There is an idea that given time 'they' will grow out of it.
This may be the case but I would like to see the evidence.
If it is not the case then denying people an intervention that would transform their lives would be cruel.

Bottom line, I think I would prefer psychiatrists to make the decision rather than Trump.

 

[Hugo Rune]

While there are legitimate (and rare) medical uses for puberty blockers, I think banning them as a treatment for paediatric mental health conditions is actually the moral and ethical thing to do. These are no small drugs to be giving to people who are in no position to conceptualise the long term consequences of taking them.

Being uncomfortable in your own skin is a normal part of growing up, being a tom-boy is normal, playing as the opposite sex is normal, wondering about your sexuality is normal, pretending to be someone else is normal, following a trend amongst your peers is normal, worrying about what other people think of you is normal, becoming an adult is normal.

Lord Robert Winston speaks a lot of sense in this area. Whilst rejecting the notion that trans-women are women, he has highlighted some very interesting studies into embryonic development where the developing brain of the embryo can be affected differently from the body of embryo by the hormones that govern sex. This area is incredibly grey not the black and white that some politicians would have you believe.

So, if your brain is female because it has not been conditioned by testosterone when you were an embryo but your body was conditioned by testosterone, you are going to be born into the wrong body. That is going to lead to profound mental health problems and is going to need some sort of treatment. We shouldn’t be throwing around puberty blockers at all, but I’m sure that these puberty blockers have helped certain individuals find their way.

 

[Curious Orange]

I largely agree.
But I would like to know a bit more about whether the likes of people I have come across would have benefitted by not gender switching when young.
There is an idea that given time 'they' will grow out of it.
This may be the case but I would like to see the evidence.
If it is not the case then denying people an intervention that would transform their lives would be cruel.

Bottom line, I think I would prefer psychiatrists to make the decision rather than Trump.

Absolutely agree with the last part.

As for what you said before, I don't think the potential benefits outway the very real and known risks in all honesty - that risk being in sterilising and permanently medicalising a child unnecessarily who might not have needed it as an adult.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Absolutely agree with the last part.

As for what you said before, I don't think the potential benefits outway the very real and known risks in all honesty - that risk being in sterilising and permanently medicalising a child unnecessarily who might not have needed it as an adult.

You may be right. I simply don't know the answer.

 

[Stato]

It’s because of recorded conviction rates for sexual offences including rape.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

View attachment 195876

According to the most recent published statistics, which you can see above, trans women are more likely to be in prison for sexual offending than not, and only 3.3% of women are in prison for sex offences compared to 16.8% of men.

The numbers don’t lie. Transwomen and men pose a far higher risk of serious sexual offending than women, making biological women in men’s spaces much, much lower risk.

Numbers don't lie, but the words around them can.

The sum that they've chosen to provide shows that transgender women prisoners are statistically more likely to have been convicted of offences of a sexual nature. However, if you do another calculation you find that they form approximately 0.566% of the total prisoners convicted of sexual offences, compared to 0.935% cis women and 98.503% cis men. Interestingly, no figures are provided specifically for trans men. To me that already suggests a researcher in search of support for a pre-formed opinion.

So the UK's 34.492m users of women's toilets, could be sharing the toilet with a total of 201 (76+125) of these offenders. Whereas the 33.1m users of men's toilets potentially face 13,234. Statistically, this would point to trans men being at much greater risk in male toilets than cis women would be in female toilets.

Furthermore, in the most recent census 0.5% of those who responded, said 'No' to the question “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” That's 262,000 trans/non binary people of which only 48,000 identify as trans women.
The prison population is currently 87,900. Of those 268 identify as trans. That's 0.308%.
Therefore the percentage identifying as 'trans' people in prison is smaller than the percentage in society. This would point to trans people being less likely to be offenders. So, although their offences may be statistically more likely to be sexual in nature, there form a statistically smaller percentage of offenders.

However, given that the statistics provided only results for sexual offences and not for sexual offences committed in public toilets, they are actually completely worthless in support of an argument that trans women pose a significant risk. The data is incomplete, the methodology wrong and the sample size woefully inadequate to show any correlation at all.

The statistics from the census show that there are 34,492,000 women in the UK and 262,000 identitying as a gender other than that assigned at birth. If as many as half of the latter would choose to use women's toilets (the question wasn't asked), those 34.492 million are likely to be sharing with 131,000. In other words, at least 99.62% of users of women's toilets were born as women. This massive amount of attention is being focused on 0.38% of the population, the vast majority of whom probably never asked to be a political football, but just want to live a life with the same respect and opportunities enjoyed by the huge majority of us.

All of this victimisation of this tiny minority is a distraction from what we all know and that statistics have always proven: the risk of sexual assault comes massively from men. Stats for the UK show that in 86% of cases the reporting victim is female and in 98% of prosecutions the offender is male. In the US they've elected someone confirmed in a civil court as being one of those offenders. What a surprise that he wants everybody to talk about something else.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Don't be silly.

I am thinking specifically about things like medicines.
We hear a lot about 'personalized' medicine.
(interventions tailored to our genotype)
And yet we can't even be bothered to select a dose around body weight for most drugs.
I have never understood that.

Likewise I know colleagues who have made a career around the effect of biological sex on drug actions.
But almost all drugs are prescribed without any regard for the sex of the patient.

As for voter fitness, yes I do believe certain categories of people should be excluded from voting.
But don't worry. I don't mean silly old sausages like you.
I mean people who in a test would declare:

England won world war two against France and America
Women are inferior
The square root of 100 is 2
Scotland is part of England
It is OK to kill people if they disagree with you.

(Other more considered questions are available.)

And so on. A simple little fitness test. What's not to like?

I doubt that the standardised dose for all adults regardless of size is because the law demands it. Is it? Surely it's more likely to be because the medical professionals and/or the drug companies aren't doing things as well as they could, not because they want to do better but the law forbids it.

As for restriction of votes, the thing that is not to like is the suggestion that the government can restrict certain groups from voting. It is safer to let the stupid and the mentally handicapped vote, than it is to let the government decide who can and can't vote.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I doubt that the standardised dose for all adults regardless of size is because the law demands it. Is it? Surely it's more likely to be because the medical professionals and/or the drug companies aren't doing things as well as they could, not because they want to do better but the law forbids it.

As for restriction of votes, the thing that is not to like is the suggestion that the government can restrict certain groups from voting. It is safer to let the stupid and the mentally handicapped vote, than it is to let the government decide who can and can't vote.

When did I say that the law demands it?

When did I say the government should restrict 'certain groups' from voting?
I suggested only the qualified should be allowed to vote.
We already have a qualification based on age.
Other qualifications should be considered.

When the police arrest someone for driving without a license they are simply preventing someone unfit to drive.

If the offender were a tory would you accuse the government of preventing 'certain groups' from driving?
And argue it would be safer to let the unqualified drive?
Hmmm......

 

[dsr-burnley]

When did I say that the law demands it?

When did I say the government should restrict 'certain groups' from voting?
I suggested only the qualified should be allowed to vote.
We already have a qualification based on age.
Other qualifications should be considered.

When the police arrest someone for driving without a license they are simply preventing someone unfit to drive.

If the offender were a tory would you accuse the government of preventing 'certain groups' from driving?
And argue it would be safer to let the unqualified drive?
Hmmm......

In the post I was referring to, you went straight from saying the law ought to be tailored towards the individual to talking about medical dosage. I hadn't realised that the subjects weren't connected and apologise for any confusion.

As for the driving licence analogy, it doesn't work. Driving on the roads is not a right, it's a privilege that has to be earned by passing a test and can be revoked if you don't drive safely. Voting is not a privilege to be issued by the government. It is a right. The government should not have the power to remove that right.

Out of interest, would you agree that your proposed non-voters should also be exempt from paying tax? Or does "no taxation without representation" seem a bit outdated nowadays?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In the post I was referring to, you went straight from saying the law ought to be tailored towards the individual to talking about medical dosage. I hadn't realised that the subjects weren't connected and apologise for any confusion.

As for the driving licence analogy, it doesn't work. Driving on the roads is not a right, it's a privilege that has to be earned by passing a test and can be revoked if you don't drive safely. Voting is not a privilege to be issued by the government. It is a right. The government should not have the power to remove that right.

Out of interest, would you agree that your proposed non-voters should also be exempt from paying tax? Or does "no taxation without representation" seem a bit outdated nowadays?

Cheers!

Very good points.
It is easy to forget that driving is not a right, especially when you get only a brief ban of a couple of years for killing someone due to dangerous driving, when in any other arena of (taking of ) life you'd be banged up for a proper stretch.

Regarding your last question, if voting is a right then arguably losing that right could justify tax exemption.
But...I don't consider that the ability to vote should be a right. I think you should be required to qualify.
I guess that's the issue to debate

 

[BadFish]

With the greatest respect, quoting these highly selective, statistically questionable findings from three lesbian feminists (from a number of different academic fields) who have made it their life ambitions to attack trans women and to halt what they consider pure lesbians transitioning into trans men is not a great look.

Let’s be clear. These three academics are at least sympathetic to the LGB Alliance theory that thousands of lesbian girls across the country are being influenced to transition into trans men because their parents are homophobic and hate women, at worst, they are fully paid up members. They hate Stonewall with a passion, almost as much as they hate men.

These three woman are just as bad as the lunatic trans lobby. The ones who think you can be whatever you want, whenever you like. These women are the sorts that are regularly kicked out of Pride parades etc. These people (on both sides) are tiny in number yet are being used to gaslight idiot right wing gammon and far left activists by the media and politicians. They are all full of shit.

There are so many more important things to worry about and discuss but for the likes of Johnson and Trump, they know a culture war will mobilise the white, uneducated, male heterosexual vote so they want it front page news. It’s pathetic.

It's also working, which is really depressing.